Saturday, April 4, 2026
71.5 F
Tifton
Home Blog Page 70

“Beetlejuice” Sequel is Worth the Long Wait

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” the sequel to “Beetlejuice,” stays true to the style of its 1988 prequel film. Viewers get a newly reimagined view of the classic “Beetlejuice” with a diverse set of new and original actors. 

Winona Ryder reprises her role as Lydia Deetz. Her acting style was similar to her performance in the original, but she shows a little more control as a more seasoned actress.  

Jenna Ortega plays Astrid Deetz, Lydia’s daughter. Throughout the movie, Astrid goes on an emotional journey while in a rebellious stage with Lydia. The conflict of the film ultimately brings them closer in the end. 

Ortega’s performance resembles a lot of the spunky attitude that Ryder brought in her role as Lydia in the original “Beetlejuice.”  

Michael Keaton plays his original character, Beetlejuice. He stays true to his original acting style but doesn’t play as the sole antagonist. Beetlejuice even helps with Lydia’s situation during the movie, providing help in the afterlife.  

Catherine O’Hara returns in her original role as Delia Deetz, the artistic, perfectionist stepmother. Delia has become fully immersed in her artistic career, making money with some famous pieces of artwork. She appears more subdued in this film than in the original, as she doesn’t have the direction of her late husband Charles Deetz, played by Jeffrey Jones in the original Beetlejuice. While we don’t technically see Charles, the movie teases his character’s fate in the afterlife. 

Willem Dafoe plays Wolf Jackson, the head of an afterlife police force. His acting style in this film is a lot more comical than his typical serious roles that audiences are accustomed to. In Wolf Jackson’s life among the living, he was just an actor who played a detective, a fact that adds to his comical actions throughout the movie. 

Danny DeVito also stars in the movie as the janitor. DeVito brought a particularly weird factor to his character. His time as the janitor in the film is short, but it is not insignificant, as he unknowingly releases one of the main antagonists of the film.  

Monica Bellucci plays Delores, Beetlejuice’s estranged ex-wife from before he became a demon, a role that suits Bellucci well. 

Jeremy, who is played by Arthur Conti, evokes in viewers a sense of conflict and uncertainty about his character throughout the film. Ortega’s character Astrid incidentally runs into Jeremy in his treehouse after she crashes her bike. They become love interests, with Jeremy trying to use Astrid to his benefit. Conti’s acting style overall draws viewers to initially believe his character’s act, before later revealing his true intentions.  

Tim Burton’s typical cinematic flair helped propel the narrative of the story. The style of the opening credits is the same as that of the original film. The afterlife waiting room stuck true to its roots; each time a main character visited it, a variety of newly deceased people would be introduced.  

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” was produced with modern editing equipment but still included the same style sets and elements as its prequel. Eagle-eyed viewers can see easter eggs and elements from the original movie, such as the giant sandworm and some of Delia’s artwork. 

Viewers also get a new cover of “Day-O” from The Sylvia Young Theater School Choir. While this rendition was very well performed, I wish the producers would have done it in the same style as the original movie. It would have been nice to see some characters dancing to the song just like they were under Beetlejuice’s influence like the original movie.  

Much like the original movie, there was a scene in the film where everyone sang under the power of Beetlejuice. The song was “MacArthur Park” by Richard Harris, which fit the scene it was in, but it felt like there could have been a stronger song choice.  

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” overall was a great watch. It provided a new look to an innovative and classic film with nostalgia expertly sprinkled throughout. The story picked right up where it left off in 1988, making its 36-year wait worth it. 

Engaged Couple Found Love on Campus

ABAC students Joey Schoonover and Alyssa Sweat are celebrating their recent engagement. 

Schoonover first noticed Sweat playing volleyball. It was Sweat’s freshman year and Schoonover’s sophomore year. They didn’t quite know each other yet, but Sweat admired him from afar. 

“I never thought Joey would notice me,” Sweat said. 

After spending time together at ABAC’s Baptist Collegiate Ministry (BCM), they caught each other’s eye. 

The couple knew they were the ones for each other on a spring break BCM mission trip. Having instantly connected during the trip, Schoonover asked to be Sweat’s boyfriend soon after. 

“He’s very thoughtful and mature and can balance having a good time and participating in leadership. When he goes to speak, you want to listen to him,” said Sweat.  

Schoonover went through multiple plans to propose to Sweat. He was anxious as he planned out the proposal with his mother. 

The planning for Sweat’s birthday party took place two or three months before. Schoonover wanted to take the chivalric approach and get Sweat’s mother’s blessing. 

“As we got closer, I thought I could talk to her the night before. I ended up not being able to. Then I talked to them that morning at Hog-N-Bones. I will never forget it because they told me afterward that they were expecting it. But I asked [her] mom if I could do it today, and then she responded, ‘Today?’”  

Sweat was completely surprised as she thought they were just taking pictures at their friend’s house. They were going through different shots and positions for the pictures when the photographer asked Sweat to pose for some single photos of her looking off into the trees. She stood there for nearly five minutes while Schoonover got the ring. 

“I thought, oh, nothing’s happening. How could I be so gullible? But, I’m glad I was,” Sweat said. She gave her perspective as a woman seeing online videos of people getting proposed to and adoring them, calling them “delicate.”  

Sweat’s world stood still during her special moment. 

“I said, ‘Actually, right now?’ Not in a bad way, it was very serial. I thought, ‘Say yes!’” said Sweat. “I wasn’t expecting it at all, but it was a great experience.” 

They cherish the fact that their relationship has brought them full circle to where it all started for them. The ceremony will be held at ABAC’s chapel and the reception at the Peanut Museum at the GMA.  

During this interview, the love between Schoonover and Sweat was infectious. Their love and admiration of one another was on full display with each flash of Sweat’s smile whenever she talked about her fiancé.  

Schoonover and Sweat’s engagement shows that anyone can find love here at ABAC—all it takes is time and patience. 

AI Cannot Replace Critical Thinking

0

ABAC students are becoming increasingly more reliant on generative artificial intelligence (AI). Whether it be for making flyers and ads or writing essays, the use of AI has gotten out of control, and such use will only backfire on students who use it the most. 

Using AI to complete assignments is not only lazy, but doing so is also detrimental to a student’s development and learning. Relying on generative technology does not allow a student to think critically—it arguably does not require a student to think at all. A student can copy and paste an essay prompt into an AI-generator and receive a response in mere moments. In this case, the student does not need to even glance at the prompt, let alone consider its questions or their own thoughts and ideas about the subject. 

While a student might see AI as a time-saving tool, using AI in this way prevents students from harnessing their critical thinking skills and developing their own views. It keeps students from truly analyzing a question, observing their thoughts, doing accurate research, and applying their knowledge to their writing, which also allows them to learn how to construct sentences and put their thoughts into words and form valid arguments.  

AI limits intellectual creativity as well. Say a student is given an essay prompt asking them to analyze the rhetorical devices and figurative language in “The Catcher in the Rye.” Rather than going through Holden Caulfield’s journey with him and seeking out these devices on their own, the student can enter the prompt into a generator with no effort, obtaining a response that satisfies the prompt.  

I’ll be completely transparent: I’m that annoying classmate who will see a suspicious discussion post and run it through AI detectors. I do this because I do not want to waste my time replying to or engaging with someone who can’t be bothered to write a few original sentences for a single discussion post.  

While I can’t speak for our professors, I can’t imagine that they want to read AI-generated slop either, let alone spend time grading it (or holding a subsequent meeting with the student and the dean for plagiarism).  

Some students think AI is difficult, if not impossible, to detect, but that could not be further from the truth. I know I have a good eye for it, and I know others, including professors, can easily spot it as well.  

AI is detectable because it rips any human personality and character from the work and transforms it into a soulless, monotonous regurgitation of information compiled from the internet. It’s even more detectable when the prompt is asking for an opinion, yet the AI-generated response—because it cannot have opinions—lacks a unique perspective and any sense of originality. 

After all, AI stands for artificial intelligence. It does not mean “true” intelligence or “accurate” intelligence; it means a computer can string together words in a way that happens to make sense. In the same way, using AI shows that you are not utilizing your true intelligence; rather, you are relying on an artificial program to think and speak for you. 

Think about it in simpler terms: artificial means fake; intelligence means smart, reasoning, or intellect. Why would you trust fake reasoning, fake intellect, to think and speak for you?  

Love Shouldn’t Be Confined to Romance

0

Love is more encompassing than the context of romance; that we reserve love only for familial or romantic relationships is a disservice to ourselves as human beings. 

I see love as a core aspect to the nature of our souls—if you believe in them—and of human beings. The love I am referring to is not romantic or sexual. Instead, it is a deeper form that encompasses a person’s entire being, solely based around a strong connection between two individuals’ souls. 

Author Karen Casey stated this sentiment much more clearly: “Truly loving another means letting go of all expectations. It means full acceptance, even celebration of another’s personhood.” 

For several years I struggled with my own concept of love. I was taught that I should be interested in boys and that I should expect to grow up and get married. I struggled for so long because I did not want this “ideal” life for myself, and I thought for that reason that something must be wrong with me. 

What I have come to realize is that the love I feel for others is not confined to romance—but it’s not physical or sexual either.  

I love human beings—their minds, their spirits, their language, their souls—and every aspect of their humanness. This love isn’t characterized by a crush or physical attraction. It isn’t love in the definitions we are accustomed to. But I find pure, human love to be much more gratifying than having a romantic or sexual attraction—two things that I simply do not experience.  

Forming real, human connections with others is not necessarily the same as forming a romantic connection. For me, I do not see others as potential romantic or sexual conquests. I see them as fellow human beings that I want to experience and connect with on a higher level—learning from and about each other, offering our space and energy, just existing with one another. That, for me, I’ve realized, is enough and what I have always, perhaps atypically, felt toward others. 

My frustration with the way we typically consider love is that life is so very short, and our concept of love oftentimes forbids us from sharing love with one another for fear that it will be misconstrued or misinterpreted by others.  

That I cannot tell people in my life that I love them due to social norms and arbitrary fears is deeply saddening. The issue is that most people associate hearing “I love you” with romance or physical desire and attraction, even when that is not the case.  

Love is not inherently physical, either. I am, as others likely are, quite capable of recognizing the beauty in a human being—the beauty of their soul, their mind, their actions, their words—without conflating it with their physical person. 

None of this is to say that love cannot be accompanied by feelings of physical desire. It’s important to note, however, that physical, or sensual, desire is not inherently sexual or romantic.  

Hugging others, for instance, is a way that I express my love for another person. There is no ulterior motive behind a hug for me; it is only to strengthen a connection, to allow for feelings of safety between two people. I find it so disheartening that so many of us go several days without hugging someone simply because we are afraid of how it may look to others. 

Why do we automatically associate love with romantic and sexual desire? Why do we ignore the nature of each other’s souls and existences, only to instead minimize one another into mere physical and sexual beings?  

Life is simply too short and too precious to demean one another in this way. We need more connecting moments—whether it be a hug, a quick chat, a kind gesture, or even an “I love you.” Ask people about their weekends; listen to their stories; tell them stories in return; check in on the people you love. 

Kurt Vonnegut once said, “A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved.” 

Once we retire these outdated and limiting definitions for love, we can instead start to truly witness and experience one another as human beings, in turn opening ourselves up to true soulful connections no longer tied down by the weight of public perception. 

Professor Profile: Dr. James Galt-Brown

Tucked away within the corners of Bowen Hall is an office-shaped museum, chock full of tattered old documents, newspaper clippings, and various antiques and knick-knacks layered with a thin coat of dust and memories. Its curator: Dr. James Galt-Brown. 

Over the course of his 22-year run at ABAC, Galt-Brown has solidified his place as one of the school’s most beloved professors among students. Having an opportunity to sit down with him one-on-one, it’s not hard to see why Galt-Brown has become a staple at ABAC. 

Music from Blue Oyster Cult echoed softly from his computer as I entered his office, the door completely and invitingly propped open. As I sat down across from him, he lamented that he actually prefers the sounds of Natalie Merchant and Franz Ferdinand, topped off with the voices of Shakira and Lady Gaga.  

Galt-Brown’s music taste is reflective of his entire persona: predictably unpredictable. His outdoorsy, Columbia-style exterior is a stark contrast to his interior, composed of humility and endless stacks of books, with an aftertaste of existentialism. Nonetheless, everything I have learned about this teller of tales has just made sense. 

In between our moments of mutual (though respectful) banter and jokes, the person I experienced across from me was thoughtful, an expert at interlacing his natural humor with his equally earnest personality. 

Hidden behind his passionately booming voice, Galt-Brown carries a sense of quiet contemplation, cautiously pondering his responses while simultaneously leaving room for his famously quick wit—a wit he has been crafting since his college years. 

“From [age] 18 to 19, I was not the most pleasant person in the world,” he said. “And that caused some issues.” 

In spite of those issues, Galt-Brown is not regretful of his past. 

“The past is what makes you different. It made me who I am,” he said. “And if I change anything, I would be someone else. And we’d be having a different conversation—to whatever degree, microcosmically, macrocosmically.” 

While his academic focus is on US, world, and American military history, this self-proclaimed storyteller’s personal past could be a history course on its own.  

“I was born with German measles,” Galt-Brown said. “Six months later, when I got my MMR vaccine—measles, mumps, rubella—in 1964, there was a contaminated batch, and I got an armful of that. So, I went in an incubator for six weeks.” 

“I kind of thought that it was because God, or Yahweh, Jehovah, Buddha, Allah, the dark side of the Force, whatever, had some kind of spectacular death planned for me,” he continued. “But now, on reflection, I think it’s just… I’m going to wear down to the bone, literally and metaphorically.” 

Galt-Brown’s primary motivating force through his lifetime of growth and near-death experiences has been the very job he’s held for the last 22 years. 

“I just gotta have the job,” he said. “If I didn’t have the job, I would sit down in that self-saving recliner and just die.” 

“I am a teller of tales,” he continued. “And along the way, I can help people learn how to interpret and judge the credibility of sources and learn about the past and maybe gain some insight to the future. But at best, I’m a storyteller.” 

From my vantage point, Galt-Brown appears to be nothing short of inspirational, a giver who in return only hopes to leave a positive imprint on students.  

“If you were inspired by me to do anything other than wisecrack and interview me as a function of your job, what would I inspire?” he asked. “I’m not saying I don’t, but for me to say that I’m inspirational, that’s kind of self-serving… Ask my students. I will accept their verdict. And I’ve been accepting their verdict for 35 years.” 

Creating these interpersonal relationships and solidifying these student-verdicts is that much more easily accomplished at an intimate college like ABAC. 

“What attracted me to ABAC was that it is a small community, and it is in a very rural area.” 

“You go to an R1 research university,” he continued, “you would have had to go through an executive assistant or department secretary and a mechanically secured door to get into this office suite. I’ve worked in that environment. I didn’t like it… the comings and goings in the offices in [the history and government] department are extremely casual.” 

ABAC students are thankful for that informal atmosphere. It’s because of their propped-open doors and friendly, laid-back environment that dedicated professors like Galt-Brown, particularly within the history and government department, can foster mutually beneficial relationships with students. 

The Galt-Brown I interviewed was not merely a history professor. He is, even in his self-described “third quarter” of his life, a student of the world, and equally a student of his students. He does not allow age and experience to dictate his ability to learn or his students’ ability to impart knowledge and insight on their professors. 

Galt-Brown’s familiar vibrato rang out as he exited his corner of ABAC to embark on yet another 75-minute storytelling excursion, his famous non-lexical vocables echoing throughout the halls. Even having known Dr. Galt-Brown for well over a year now, I can see there is still much to learn about him, and that he is equally eager to continue his own personal learning journey.